Josh Holloway could be a good choice, he was offered before in X3 but he turned it down because he was busy with Lost. Anyway if they want to bring back Gambit, Angel and Emma Frost, maybe they could hire their 1st choice for those characters.

Im kinda annoyed angel isn't showing up in this film. It would have given singer a great chance to set up archangel like he almost did in x2.

Hopefully we get an X4 with the return of gambit, do the mauraders arc with sinister/apocalypse. Turn angel into archangel and have magnetos followers who survived san fran retreated into the underground becoming the morlocks

About that article: Singer also said he wasn't going to be ignoring any of the existing films.

When you add in the fact that, because The Wolverine is set after TLS, any 'undoing' of TLS' events would also alter or invalidate the events of that movie as well, and that's not going to happen.

__________________

Quote:

"Despair is for people who know beyond any doubt what the future is going to be. Nobody's in that position. So despair is not only a kind of sin - theologically - it's also a simple mistake, because nobody actually knows." - Dr. Patrick Curry

Quote:

"There is no "supposed to be." It's an adaptation, a word that literally means change. Why bother making a new version if it doesn't offer a fresh approach?" - Christopher L. Bennett

Not only that... But bringing someone back from the dead doesnt suddenly mean the past didnt happen. No one is saying hes going back and removing events from happening.

The events of X3 could have still happened the exact way they did even if jean never killed scott. It would have just been scott killing jean rather than logan in the end. Jean still would have snapped and went crazy.

But even without that concept... You can bring a dead character back to life without erasing another film.

Nothing that happened in Abrams' Star Trek did anything to invalidate the 'prime' Star Trek continuity.

Singer's quote can be interpreted a myriad of different ways, and, when looked at in conjunction with his stating that he wasn't going to ignore any of the existing films, tells me that, as much as some people might want it to be otherwise, whatever 'fixes' Singer makes are not going to invalidate any of the existing films or the forthcoming The Wolverine. This means no alternate timelines, no erasing the events of TLS - or O:W - from canon, no pretending that said events didn't happen, etc.

I'll close by repeating what I said earlier: just because you didn't like a particular plot development or creative decision doesn't mean that it represents something that should be 'fixed'.

__________________

Quote:

"Despair is for people who know beyond any doubt what the future is going to be. Nobody's in that position. So despair is not only a kind of sin - theologically - it's also a simple mistake, because nobody actually knows." - Dr. Patrick Curry

Quote:

"There is no "supposed to be." It's an adaptation, a word that literally means change. Why bother making a new version if it doesn't offer a fresh approach?" - Christopher L. Bennett

Nothing that happened in Abrams' Star Trek did anything to invalidate the 'prime' Star Trek continuity.

Singer's quote can be interpreted a myriad of different ways, and, when looked at in conjunction with his stating that he wasn't going to ignore any of the existing films, tells me that, as much as some people might want it to be otherwise, whatever 'fixes' Singer makes are not going to invalidate any of the existing films or the forthcoming The Wolverine. This means no alternate timelines, no erasing the events of TLS - or O:W - from canon, no pretending that said events didn't happen, etc.

I'll close by repeating what I said earlier: just because you didn't like a particular plot development or creative decision doesn't mean that it represents something that should be 'fixed'.

You're really the only one even talking about TLS and XO getting erased..... no one in current conversations are discussing any of that.

Also just an fyi... Singer has said he's been talking with James Cameron about alternate timelines and what not. So don't be too sure about that. All we know for sure is that hes not "superman returns-ing" the xmen films

The Avengers is different. The superheroes that appeared in Avengers came from different series. First Class wasn't a separate series. It was a prequel to X1.

Agreed. FC isnt it's own series as of now. Just younger versions of the same characters already introduced in the OT. They didn't even bring back the new ones that were in FC. It would be the same as The Avengers having a team prequel with younger versions of themselves without the solo flicks.

I expect any film after this to have a title like Uncanny X-men, X-Men: Age Of Apocalypse etc. I'd be shocked if they brought back the numbers.

To each there own. Just don't fall apart if we get another film and its codenamed X4

I think the only reason this was not is because its merging 2 casts. They are the same franchise but it is merging casts like avengers.

Hmm, I don't really view this X-Men movie series like the Marvel Cinematic Universe. MCU is one of its kind. Iron Man has its own series, Thor has its own series, Captain America has its own series, and there's the Avengers series where some of the lead characters came from the other series. With X-Men, their films are either a spin-off, a prequel or a film with the original cast.

I have discussed this several times ago, but the way I see it, DOFP is both X4/FC2. But since majority of the cast/characters appeared in X3, this is more of a X-Men 4 to me. Its the 4th film with the original cast with actors from the prequel.

Hmm, I don't really view this X-Men movie series like the Marvel Cinematic Universe. MCU is one of its kind. Iron Man has its own series, Thor has its own series, Captain America has its own series, and there's the Avengers series where some of the lead characters came from the other series. With X-Men, their films are either a spin-off, a prequel or a film with the original cast.

I have discussed this several times ago, but the way I see it, DOFP is both X4/FC2. But since majority of the cast/characters appeared in X3, this is more of a X-Men 4 to me. Its the 4th film with the original cast with actors from the prequel.

I don't think the size of cast on either end indicates anything. For all we know the ot class may only be seen for 20min tops of the film. (or vice versa)

Its certainly both a sequel and prequel film but i view it more like a comic one shot.

Maybe you'd have felt different if we got a series of FC films with cast for a film or two clearly making it their own franchise

I don't think the size of cast on either end indicates anything. For all we know the ot class may only be seen for 20min tops of the film. (or vice versa)

Its certainly both a sequel and prequel film but i view it more like a comic one shot.

Maybe you'd have felt different if we got a series of FC films with cast for a film or two clearly making it their own franchise

I don't think we can also view DOFP as a prequel. The first three movies had scenes set in the past too. DOFP will be similar to that when we see scenes set in the past. Then time-traveling to the past and changing the past also rules out the definition of a prequel. When the future X-Men go to the past, they are rewriting the history. So the film won't just shows things that already happened in the past. So it cannot be considered as a prequel film.

And maybe I'd have a different opinion if the cast of First Class got their own series like the original cast but no. That didn't happen. So First Class was just a prequel, not a separate series.

Yeah the numbering when it comes to the movie title is over, especially when they named X3 "X-Men: The Last Stand".

And I really doubt that FOX would give the fifth film with the original cast the title of "X-Men 4". People might be confuse with that especially if they saw DOFP as X-Men 4.

Actually it was just "xmen : the last stand" X3 was never part of the official title. It was just referenced in image (x with wolvies claws) an was essentially the codename for it. Unlike "X2: Xmen united"'s title.

After X2 anything given an x and digit is just essentially fan reference and code name

I don't think we can also view DOFP as a prequel. The first three movies had scenes set in the past too. DOFP will be similar to that when we see scenes set in the past. Then time-traveling to the past and changing the past also rules out the definition of a prequel. When the future X-Men go to the past, they are rewriting the history. So the film won't just shows things that happened in the past. So it can be considered as a prequel film.

But you're under the assumption the 70s arnt going to be a major focus. Its not a flashback.

This film could mostly take place in the 70s (like X-men origins) which was also the 70s and considered a prequel .

This film is just as much a prequel to the OT as it is a sequel to it.